Larry Kramer On Stonewall Boycott

“Don’t listen to the crazies. For some reason there is a group of ‘activists’ that insists on maintaining their prime importance and participation during this riot. Unfortunately there seems no one left alive to say ‘it wasn’t that way at all,’ or ‘who are or where the fuck were you.’ As with so much history there is no way to ‘prove’ a lot of stuff, which allows artists such as yourself (and me I might add) to take essences and attempt to find and convey meaning and truth. I sincerely hope this boycott your film shit peters out. We are not dealing with another ‘Cruising’ here. Keeping your film from being seen is only hurting ourselves. Good luck and thank you for your passion.” – Larry Kramer, responding to the Facebook page of Stonewall director Roland Emmerich.

  • medaka

    Don’t listen to the crazies…

    …who will be here shortly.

    • Brian in Valdosta

      … dressed in their finest white jackets.

  • Michael Rush

    until it comes out you can see the same director’s
    1998 Godzilla remake . yawn .
    ( review : ” It’s a horrendously long, poorly acted,
    unoriginal piece of crap ” … at a cost of 120 million dollars )

    • Oh, it was terrible. It was an early date for The Other Half and me, and we walked out. I never, never do that.

      • Michael Rush

        i went with someone to the Flintstones movie ( 1994 ) and it damaged me for life , i never went to a movie without checking the reviews / director again .

  • TommyTune

    I agree with Kramer. People should at least wait until they’ve seen the entire film, not just the trailer, before rushing to judgement.

    • fuow

      Yeah, but it’s so much more fun to be destructive than creative.
      I’ve had it up to hear with the circle-jerk PC asswipes.

      • ggg

        Trump is tired of being PC also! You sound a bit team Trump . . . .

        • fuow

          Whatever, dude.

        • Gerry Fisher

          Different definitions of PC. Context matters.

        • But in his case, Trump is mistaking “PC” for being polite. Misogynistic statements aren’t about being PC or not. It’s simple manners to avoid being rude.

        • truthy

          Jackass award

        • Dead Giveaway

          Look up the horseshoe theory of politics. The Left AND the Right have extremists whose goals are largely indistinguishable. The Left’s extremists are the perpetually offended, politically correct Social Justice Warriors. There is no pleasing them. They are a social cancer.

    • Blake Jordan

      How exactly do you boycott a movie by watching it first?

      • Silver Badger

        Why watch it when I can let strangers make up my mind for me?

        • Blake Jordan

          So you are saying the movie should be made a success by everyone going to watch it, even if they find out afterwards it white-washed history?

          • Silver Badger

            No. I am saying I will make up my own mind. You don’t have permission to think for me, thank you very much.

          • Blake Jordan

            When did I say you or anyone else was not allowed to make up their own mind???

          • Silver Badger

            When you told me to boycott the movie sight unseen.

          • Blake Jordan

            If that is what you inferred from my first response to TommyTunes, it is down to you, because that is not what I implied.

          • Silver Badger

            Actually, it is what you implied. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. How can I decide about the movie unless I watch it first? I can’t unless I am willing to allow others to think for me.

          • Dramphooey

            I don’t believe it is whitewashing history and none of the activists who say it is has proven anything.

          • SelectFromWhere

            I’ve noticed that any time someone starts a statement with “So, you are saying…”, they’ve already made up their mind, are putting words in the other person’s mouth, and aren’t going to change their mind no matter what.

          • SelectFromWhere

            And BTW, it won’t be made a “success”, being a gay-themed movie. But if some of the clueless straight people out there, or clueless gay people for that matter, learn that there was this place called Stonewall and these riots happened and began the gay rights movement (and that is pretty much as much as most people usually get from a “historical” film, think Selma…) then it’s not a bad thing, even if it’s not ideal.

      • rkwright

        Maybe anyone, just one, from the boycott side should actually see the film so they know what they are boycotting, or if their boycott is warranted at all. Reminds me of the Christians boycotting everything that might possibly offend them, even when it doesn’t.

        • Blake Jordan

          Did you read TommyTune’s comment and my response to it?
          He said we should all go watch it first, to make up our own minds, but if it is problematic, how exactly do we boycott the movie after already watching it.
          We have basically given them out money already, for making a poor representation of he events.

          I made your exact suggesting in another comment, i.e., that some people from the boycott should be allowed to see a pre-release screening and if it is not “problematic”, call off the boycott.

          • rkwright

            You can blindly let others decide for you what to see or what to think, but that doesn’t work for me, as I’ve expressed.

      • David Walker

        It happens nearly every weekend. There are people who need to see every movie on opening Friday and then tweet their opinion. If they don’t like it, crowds diminish over the weekend.

        • Blake Jordan

          That makes sense, but that was not what is implied by TommyTune’s comment.
          As it was written, we should all watch the movie…

          • David Walker

            I would respect the picketers a lot more if they saw the movie and then picket the theater. The biggest thrust of the current movie seems to be forcing theaters not to show it. I opposed that approach for “Cruising” and I oppose it now. Someone needs to see the movie, not the trailer, to tell me what’s in the film itself, not its selling points.

          • Or at least wait for reviews and critiques of the full film, not a two-minute trailer created by a marketing department, not the director.

      • truthy

        You share your opinion based on observations them recommend others avoid it based on the facts you share

      • nipper

        Wait fr it to come on hbo/netflix instead of paying the 14.00 at a theater?

      • SelectFromWhere

        I guess that’s what the people who want to ban books say, too.

    • GarySFBCN

      I am going to wait until I see the film before I judge. But we in the gay community have boycotted films before they were releases, including Basic Instinct and Ender’s Game.

      I know that in the case of Ender’s Game it was because of the homophobia of the author, but for Basic Instinct it was based upon an early copy of the screenplay.

  • Dean

    I find it difficult to believe that there are no Stonewall participants left alive. You could also claim that there is nobody left that attended Woodstock, and that is a ridiculous assumption.

    • TommyTune

      That is an apples vs. oranges comparison. 400,000 people attended Woodstock. Perhaps dozens were at the Stonewall Inn on the night of the raid. There’s a world of difference there in terms of numbers.

      • Dean

        Yes, but there were also plenty of people standing around watching, and plenty of people who lived in the neighborhood, and all of the participants had friends, who certainly must have at least discussed the event at the time. We’re not just talking about a handful of valiant drag queens here. Many of those participating would be ion their 70’s if still alive, so it’s not out of the question.

        • Mark

          Of course it’s not out of the question. But i wonder how many who were there are still there – or at least have it on their resume? Lots of people just don’t care to jump into the fray….

        • gaymex

          I agree. I am in my 70s and I had two friends who were there. I haven’t had contact with them in years, but I will trry to find them to get their take on this. I know one of them contracted AIDS early on, so I don’t know if he’s still living.

          • Dean

            If you do find them, please pump them for information and share it with everybody. I hope you have a happy reunion with your friends.

        • bambinoitaliano

          That would require a lot of time and money to research. Who would have that kind of money to do that? Hollywood? Oh wait!

          • Reality.Bites

            People mistake this for a “Hollywood” movie because a big director is attached. It’s very much a small, indy film, without a studio attached and with limited distribution.

          • Dramphooey

            That’s a pity. I was looking forward to the Stonewall Inn suddenly raising itself on rockets, hovering over the police station and obliterating it with a blast of special effects.

          • Octavio

            And queens from the bar fighting back zombie vampire dinosaurs! That’d be cool! 🙂

          • Reality.Bites

            I’d see that.

          • fuow

            That’s very true. In Germany, for years and years, a too-well produced movie was criticized and the director/producer/studio accused of selling out to Hollywood production values over ‘art’.
            Seriously.

          • Robert Schaaf

            A small, indy film by an out, gay director, and still it wants to serve up a bit of sentimentalized, bleached queer history for as big a box office as possible, given the material. A kind of “Tales of the City: East”.

        • Why do your remarks remind me of Rashomon?

          • Silver Badger

            Rashomon? Explain please.

          • Dramphooey

            It’s a famous film by Kurosawa which depicted the same event being retold by different witnesses. It’s been ripped off by sitcoms multiple times.

          • Silver Badger

            Thank you.

          • Rashomon is Kurosawa’s Academy-Award winning film of 1950, whose central theme is that eye-witness accounts of an event — in the film, a rape and murder — are often very different, a phenomenon that has become known as “the Rashomon effect”.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

        • TommyTune

          In terms of what went down in the bar itself to ignite the whole movement we’re only talking dozens of people, but I concede your point about what happened afterwards in the streets. Still, it does not nearly rise to the numbers at Woodstock.

          • Mark

            When you throw in the lives lost – especially in the early days – to the plague – the number of original “I was there” could be even less. We lost thousands and thousands.

          • fuow

            Lot’s of younger gays don’t realize how decimated our numbers were.
            Seriously have no clue.
            Thank.The.Gods.
            That’s the only reason I can think of for the slut-shaming which goes on everytime we discuss a means of interrupting the vectors of this damn thing.

          • JT

            In the PBS documentary, Stonewall Uprising, there were some interviews with people who were there. I think there was a Village Voice writer in addition to participants.

        • canoebum

          The first time I was ever served a drink in a bar, it was at the Stonewall Inn. It was in the middle of the afternoon. The doorman peered at me through the little caged window and let me in. I went to the bar and sat down. Being the afternoon, almost no one else was there. The smiling bartender greeted me and asked what I would like. I ordered a gin and tonic, which he brought to me. I think it was $2. I was 16. The photo below about how I looked at the time. I went to the Stonewall maybe 8 or 10 times, danced with a guy for the first time there, made out in a bar for the first time there. It was a revelation for me. But, looking the way I did, when I went at night, I never stayed long. Someone would snap me up and get me to their apartment in pretty short order. I remember hanging around the stoop of the building next door and meeting people there. At times, when talking with other young guys I’d be confronted with difficult questions, which I had no idea how to answer. Questions like “Are you butch or fem?” I had no idea what they were talking about. By the time the riots broke out, I was living uptown and was busy becoming a pothead and hippie, making friends, some of whom I know until today . I saw the news, and thought about going to see, but I really didn’t want to have anything to do with the cops, so I stayed away. Just a couple of months later I went with friends to Woodstock. After that, I don’t recall returning to the Stonewall, I started going to the Ninth Circle, which was a better social experience for me. To tell the truth, being a white kid from Pennsylvania, I didn’t have much interaction with drag queens and street kids at the Stonewall. But, like I said, I didn’t get to hang around in the place for very long. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6eb5f6f275faa126299e7aff9afb1a6c1d96d3a72ae9d6a5b98a9c06e235143.jpg

          • Reality.Bites

            I used preview on my Mac to adjust the colour, in case you prefer it this way.

          • canoebum

            Thanks.

      • Gerry Fisher

        I don’t recall them selling tickets to Stonewall, either? The Who didn’t play Stonewall.

    • Gerry Fisher

      More to the point, far more people claim to have been at Woodstock than actually attended.

  • Mark

    If anything, the ‘crazies’ have given me even more reason to see it – because, after all – they are fucking crazy.

  • HeyBudBoston

    I’m in my 50s and have known about the Stonewall riots my whole life and never once did I ever hear anybody claim they KNEW who threw the first brick/cocktail glass until this week.

    • fuow

      Ditto.
      I’ve been out and loud and proud for ever and ever and never once encountered a believable explanation as to who threw what first.
      There must be smart phone videos out there, why aren’t people posting them?
      (Do I really have to add /s to that?)

      • Silver Badger

        You really should. The closer we get to mainstream the more we lose our sense of humor.

    • Gerry Fisher

      The other thing is that, when a ground breaking event happened to a marginalized, hated, largely ignored group (pre-cell-phone), then it was highly likely that there’d be no evidence collected. The rioters were too busy rioting to record what was happening, and the mainstream media had no clue about the seminal importance of this event.

      I love the snarky newspaper report of the Stonewall riots that makes the rounds on the net every once in a while. It was from a reputable paper, but I forget which one. They were too busy making fun of the queers to spend much time on the finer details of the event.

      It was the New York Daily News. I found a link to it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/stonewall-queen-bees/

      • Dramphooey

        Joe actually posts the Lisker column annually.

    • David Walker

      I have, and it fully depends on who has the spotlight at the time. I’m sorry, but I doubt this will ever be nailed down…so pick the witness you like best and stand up for her/him. This, however, is no reason to act like our enemies and boycott something we’ve never seen.

    • Saya

      See my reply above with quotes from David Carter’s book. There was no famous “brick” moment. It was a gradual buildup of small acts of resistance. The first major act of defiance came from a lesbian who refused to be put into a paddy wagon. When projectiles were thrown, they came from many different people and it started out with coins and small objects. And as Carter notes, while everyone played a role, the people who fought the hardest and took the most injuries would be a group of street kids – homeless gay boys. Mostly white. Some of color. Most, but not all, were effeminate, but they were not transgenders or transvestites. They were rejected by their families, schools and were spurned even by other gays and by the drag queens because they were young and homeless. These boycotters want us to wreck the movie because it doesn’t show present a fake history, like a black drag queen starting the riot by throwing a brick.

    • NMNative

      It’s like the number of gay men who claim to have seen Bette perform at the baths in NYC. So many people claim to have been there, the numbers are impossible.

  • AtticusP

    I was planning to see it anyway, but now that it has Larry Kramer’s approval, I’m definitely going to.

    To me, if anyone living personifies the LGBT rights movement, it is he.

    • Gerry Fisher

      A very small, intense part of the LGBT movement, at a specific time in history that fit him like a glove.

      …but, please do see the movie!

  • bkmn

    It is a movie, not a documentary. The director has every right to do as they please.

  • S1AMER

    A good movie based on historical events captures the essence of the time and place. That’s not an easy thing to do in only a couple hours. Some times several people have to be “condensed” into one or two characters. Some times time lapses have to be reduced from weeks or months to days or hours. Some details have to be omitted entirely. Some participants have to be left out. The effect, if it works, is a tight story that explicates something that actually happened. And that’s a good thing for informing an audience that knows little about the actual events.

    People who complain about a movie because they want more don’t undertand the art of moviemaking or storytelling. Being true to your story is the most important thing, even if that sometimes requires omitting some of the actual factual details.

    I’m noticing growing complaints that, apparently, Suffragette won’t be going into the stories of some British suffragettes who were lesbians. To me, that’s another story, about lesbians coming to political awareness in the pre-WWI years. The coming movie is about some real and fictional characters involved in getting the vote — and it’s a hell of a story historically. Pankhurst (Streep’s role) was quite a woman, quite a leader. Yet many of the women who adored and followed her were appalled when she set the movement aside to support the country in WWI. That’s not mentioned in the movie either — so should historical purists boycott the movie for that reason?

    A good movie has value in itself — and should not be condemned for not being some other movie.

    • Dramphooey

      Excellent.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I was a huge fan of the documentary, “The Times of Harvey Milk.” I thought “Milk” did a great job of what you’re describing. The mainstream version told a story that was easily recognizable, and the themes held up.

    • David Walker

      And a basic question comes to mind: Have you ever seen a trailer that has little or nothing to do with the actual movie? Have you ever gone to a movie because of the trailer or the TV ad and wondered what the fuck was going on? A trailer is a commercial.

      • And, more specifically, the trailer is a commercial made by the distributor’s marketing department, not by the director of the film. Characters and themes important to the director may end up being downplayed or ignored entirely in the trailer.

    • SFHarry

      What your saying has merit but it is important to recognize that the condensation often ends with a stereotypical straight white male as the hero, even in a gay themed movie.

      • SFHarry

        Like Dallas Buyers Club

  • The Professor

    Well said.

  • joeyj1220

    wow… if Larry Kramer is telling activists to tone it down…

    • bambinoitaliano

      He is getting senile 🙂

    • JT

      He’s always been outspoken against people he’s thought were conveying the wrong message.

    • Reality.Bites

      If you look at it as him telling people to boycott the boycott it all works. 😉

      • Gerry Fisher

        LUV that!

  • bambinoitaliano

    While I would not use Cruising to contrast this movie. I would like to know how does it stack up against Milk, The Normal Heart and Dallas Buyers Club.

    • Dramphooey

      Well, one has to view it to compare.

      • Gerry Fisher

        Ohhhh, *details*!

    • Randy Left Brooklyn

      With Milk and Dallas Buyers Club, both movies did exactly what S1Amer says above, and I thought both were excellent movies. The Normal Heart I saw on stage and it also did the same thing, condensing the facts to make a narrative work better.

  • GarySFBCN

    Wow, I’m disappointed. There is legitimate debate and while I’m not disputing his side on this, dismissing those with whom he disagrees as ‘crazies’ – in defense of a Hollywood movie – seems like he is insensitive to racial/trans/drag issues in the gay community or a fucking sell-out.

    I guess he got his, so fuck everyone else.

    • Stev84

      I’d split the baby. There are valid complaints here, but a boycott is an overreaction.

      • GarySFBCN

        That is how I feel too. I want to see the movie and then decide.

    • NorhillJohn

      It’s absolutely a legitimate debate. It’s also one that can’t be had with out seeing the movie in question. If the movie is flawed, there will be lots of discussion of it. Boycotting based on a trailer is ridiculous and Kramer is right on this.

    • Dramphooey

      Calling them “crazies” isn’t polite. On the other hand what these people are doing isn’t good. The French Revolution overthrew a horrible system and the people involved tried to make a better one. Then the Girondists weren’t good enough and the Herbertists had to go and finally the Indulgents were offed before “the crazies” were exterminated themselves and France was a monarchy again in no time.

      • Octavio

        Yeah. He should have said “Bimbos bleeding from their . . . where ever.” 🙂

      • Polterguest

        –Calling them “crazies” isn’t polite.–

        Stop “tone policing” him! Oh, wait, he’s a “cis,” white gay male. So it’s ok. Carry on!

    • Gerry Fisher

      >There is legitimate debate…

      I think that’s what drives me *nuts* about how the activists went about things. Instead of having a debate, which is AWESOME!, they jumped right to boycotting and lecturing.

      • Polterguest

        To queer SJWs, “debate” and “dialogue” means “shut up and repeat back what we tell you.”

        • fuow

          You noticed.
          Right-speak=Right-think for the pink SJWs and boy, are they nasty.

    • rkwright

      What, exactly, is the legitimate debate? That a movie trailer has a white guy featured in it? Or the idea that some want to erase white gay men from all of the movement?

      • GarySFBCN

        ” Or the idea that some want to erase white gay men from all of the movement?”

        “Entitled” doesn’t begin to describe you.

        • rkwright

          You know nothing about me. Except that I’m white, from my photo. I have great respect for my trams friends, and my friends of color. I u derstand and accept that throughout my life I have been privileged to not have to experience what they have had to, directly because of my skin color. I also,love my lesbian friends and realize that they have had serious discrimination based on their gender, and their sexual identity. What I don’t fully accept is that there has been no real discussion broached by this call for a boycott of a film none of those calling for the boycott have actually seen. I also know that there IS a concerted effort to diminish gay white men and it has been moving quite quickly as of late. I do believe that it’s good for our community to speak of the trains phobia and the racism in our community, (which is far greater than the majority of us will admit) is rampant and needs to be addressed. I don’t believe that everything that has a white person featured in it is dis washing trains washing of the actual,history of our movement. I have for years defended trans men and women from insults and disparaging comments by gay men, and have for years given them credit for being a moving force at Stonewall, but I don’t support the idea of everything white gay male is somehow racist or trans phobic. amd I’m not going to let you insinuate that I am somehow more entitled or feeling entitled than others. I’m sick and tired of people like you thinking you’re so open minded and want to have a discussion, but when challenged has to resort to trying to shut the conversation down by insinuating I’m phobic or overly entitled. You don’t want to foster a discussion, you want to dictate it.

          • GarySFBCN

            “I also know that there IS a concerted effort to diminish gay white men and it has been moving quite quickly as of late.”

            Only in your head, dude. Poor oppressed white guy. I weep for your plight.

            And again, you resort to using absolutes: NOBODY said that ALL white gay men are racist, nor that all white gay men are transphobic.

            But I have personally witnessed racism and transphobia in the gay community, including transphobia here in JMG.

            Go peddle your bullshit victimhood somewhere else.

          • Polterguest

            Start your own site if you think you’re qualified to dictate who posts what and where. The sanctimonious douchebaggery SJW assholes like you like to wield like a club isn’t welcome among civilized, decent people. How about you fuck off somewhere else?

          • GarySFBCN

            Yeah, but you’re not ‘civilized, decent people’ so I guess my post was apt.

          • Polterguest

            From you, that’a a compliment. Your disdain is a delicious balm.

          • John

            Your lunatic and defensive reply’s are popping everywhere. Go take take your meds.

          • rkwright

            I guess you don’t read the transgender websites. Planet Transgender has an article on this by Amy, and multiple posters there, and on other sites are proclaiming cisgender gay white men need to be stopped. No, that doesn’t call for any effort to diminish gay white men at all. And quite frankly, I don’t have any feelings of being oppressed. I live in a great area surrounded by a wide variety of people, gay, straight, trans, and all sorts of shades of color. I like where I live and I love my neighbors, so your idea that I thin I am oppressed is ridiculous. Seeing the writing on the wall and saying what you read doesn’t mean you feel personally oppressed. And yes, on this site there has been much trans bashing, but you won’t be able to lay that on me. Feel free to look at my co,meets, I have a long history of stating that our trans sisters were at the forefront of this battle. I don’t diminish what they contribute. But there were plenty of gay white men, as well as gay men of color that were there too, and yes, someone could write a story about their experiences too. Go call others names, it’s what you do best. And you still ah net expressed what conversation you think this fosters, as so far it only seems to be devisive.

          • GarySFBCN

            So a few nutcases (there I go, “name calling” again) on a trans website represents a true force that is accomplishing something?

            “But there were plenty of gay white men, as well as gay men of color that were there too, and yes, someone could write a story about their experiences too.”

            But you see, it is really ONE story. It is not a white story or a POC story or a trans story. That some POC/trans have held onto Stonewall as part of their activism identity is nothing more than trying to not have their history erased. White gay men did this once. The world now knows that Alan Turning was gay because of activism.

            Also, that transphobia and racism that we both acknowledge exists pushes non-whites and trans into a ‘hunker-down’ posture, and then when something like what reportedly happened in the casting of this movie and the retelling of the Stonewall story, a ‘take no prisoners’ approach emerges.

            My advice is to not give credibility to efforts Amy and others, because clearly, they aren’t going to get any traction outside of their peers.

            There. I engaged in what seems to me to be thoughtful discourse. Have a good day.

          • rkwright

            Yes, this was much more thoughtful, but I would disagree that it is ONE story. Stonewall and every other rebellion may seem on its face to be just one story, but it’s not, it’s many many singular stories that create a total historic moment. Each person involved has a story, and that story is what lead them to be present and a participant in a monumental moment. The event could not have happened without those individual stories. Each person has their own story, sometimes we just coalesce around a moment in time.

  • Gigi

    I’m not a fan of OMM-style boycotts of films that no one has even seen yet. We’re better than that.

  • Good old American capitalism.
    Honesty and integrity have a price.
    Perhaps that is why anybody who see’s your country as great to begin with has a wake up call when the makeup comes off in bed…
    Yup thats got to hurt so yes the entry wound is not where you thought it would be when triaging PR after the fact.
    Is setting the bar higher that tedious?
    Do it for the kids at least instead of ball and chaining them to a false positive too.

    (It’s me and I’m baaaaccckkk!)

    • medaka

      (It’s me and I’m baaaaccckkk!)

      You are indeed. And we open you with welcome arms.

  • A Big Sarcastic Fairy!

    This is the one time I agree with Larry Kramer.

    • Dramphooey

      Oh, good … wait, are you being sarcastic?

      • A Big Sarcastic Fairy!

        Surprisingly I am not. I actually agree with the man this one time. I may lose my status. 🙂

    • Gerry Fisher

      I felt the same way.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Well said Mr. Kramer. It’s a Drama not a Documentary. This Boycott bullshit is ridiculous.

    • d.

      And give up the opportunity to be outraged? Where’s the fun in that?

      • Rebecca Gardner

        Now I have the giggles. 🙂

    • fuow

      Yup. It’s a cheap display of ‘courage’ by people who have nothing to lose.
      We may not even begin to approach the religious right in this US for nut-cases, but we do have a few crazies, who think right-speak=right-think.That group is totally immune to reality

  • Art

    I like what he has done for our community, but at the end of the day is another white gay man that doesn’t understand or seem to want to, how offensive this movie is.

    By once more showing our lives, and now our history through the eyes of a made up GQ READY white guy with a messiah complex , especially at the expense of real stonewall veterans mostly sacrificing trans, lesbians, blacks and Latinos, drag kings and queens.

    Every time I see this pic.. I cringe.. Is such a perfect metaphor for white male privilege.. Him throwing a brick, being the hero while all the minorities are in the back in ah of this brave white hero.

    That sick thing is that they try to make the situation better by letting us know that Marsha P Johnson handed him the brick… When the consensus is that it was her a trans drag queen of color that did it.

    I usually don’t care.. I’m use to it.. But I draw the line at STONEWALL… The people that sparked a riot, that created a movement, deserve better… WE DESERVE BETTER. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fb1afc0f06e5be08b945e4edc3c02334f24bb9154aa04a68092832103189df8.jpg

    • medaka

      doesn’t understand or seem to want to, how offensive this movie is.

      Oh, so you’ve seen it already.

      • Dramphooey

        Oh, he cringed at a pic. Apparently this movie is a View-master reel rather than an actual film so this single picture is like a twelfth of the movie.

        • medaka

          View Master! I had one of those!

          I’m so old I might even have been at Stonewall with Art. Oh wait….

          • Dramphooey

            The Family Guy Rule: include a reference to something somebody remembers from 70s, 80s or 90s and you’re guaranteed a laugh.

          • Reality.Bites

            Or around here you can just say Benghazi. 😉

          • Dramphooey

            Oh, I was there as a four month old fetus. I actually wrapped my umbilical cord about a cop’s neck. Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my interview.

    • d.

      Art wrote “especially at the expense of real stonewall veterans mostly sacrificing trans, lesbians, blacks and Latinos, drag kings and queens.”

      Tell us how you know this, Art. Tell us how you know who was at Stonewall and what happened there.

      • Art
        • d.

          I didn’t ask you to repeat your uninformed opinion, I asked you to prove it. How do you know what you know?

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            You mean like citing archival footage or some other fact based info? Art wouldn’t have a clue, and it doesn’t fit his preconceived narrative.

        • Polterguest

          That claim they were there.

        • Gerry Fisher

          I don’t know how old you are, but I’m 54. Please don’t ask me to recount an event in detail from, say, 1989, never mind 1979 (I was a senior in high school then).

          I recently had a verbal dust up that led to reporting an incident to my property manager. It was serious; I was threatened. I also walked up to the side of the pick-up truck as a way to talk to the young people who were calling me out to fight. (Non-LGBT related.) I was very focused on the driver and the guy who was jawing at me in the passenger-side of the car.

          As you can imagine, my blood was pumping, and it was intense. I’d imagine that the same could be said for people rioting at Stonewall.

          When asked if I’d like to file a police report, I discovered a few interesting things in my ability to recount the incident. I couldn’t remember the make of the truck or the license plate. There was a third person sitting between the driver and the guy in the passenger’s seat. Because of my fear and hyperfocus on the other two, I couldn’t tell you whether the person was male or female, never mind any, ANY physical details.

          It’s really, REALLY hard to record an event, especially one that’s highly emotionally charged.

          • Bad Tom

            Your account of recall of a recent, intense event is absolutely normal. Memory is very fallible. Thank you for the dose of clarity.

      • Art

        Here are some interviews for you to check out:
        http://youtu.be/O8gKdAOQyyI
        http://youtu.be/Vr5lmKRp6CY
        https://vimeo.com/[email protected]_Movie
        http://youtu.be/iXlwfpqZ3po

        Patron Martin Boyce recalls drag queen ripping parking meter to use against police at Stonewall http://t.co/E0WQifRbOq @Stonewall_Movie

        • d,

          The definitive account of Stonewall is David Carter’s “Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution.” That book doesn’t mention Sylvia Rivera at all. Carter discusses Marsha P. Johnson’s serious mental illness. Carter places Marsha P. Johnson at the riot and in the vanguard among a number of people.
          In Martin Duberman’s “Stonewall,” Sylvia Rivera claims to have been there, which is disputed, but she does NOT claim to have thrown the first whatever was thrown nor does she claim to have been in any leadership role.

          Depending on the interview, the people you are holding out as champions or leading this riot disagree with you.

          Storme’s role is supported by Charles Kaiser’s book and he presents no evidence to support that claim.

          So how do you know what you know?

          • Dramphooey

            Ew, reading. Isn’t there a five minute YouTube video?

          • d.

            Five minutes? Do you know how long that is? It’s like a hour or something. Can’t this be done in a tweet?

          • Polterguest

            Because a few trans and queer “activitists” have taken to regurgitating the same bullshit mythologies about Stonewall and that is THE TRUTH! Don’t you dare show them otherwise. Poor Art. If Art is the direction “our” “community” is going, I can’t wait for us to all go our separate ways.

        • Dramphooey

          Interviews are important but it must be remembered that memories fade. I’m very interested in the history of the French in western Pennsylvania. There is a memoir by Charles “Jolicoeur” Bonin, who served at Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) that is very interestesting. But his memoirs include things that didn’t happen. He wrote that the British took Fort Niagara and the French took it back in 1757 and that did not occur. It was written years after the events. Memories fade and stories get embellished. Anyone who is a serious historian must know this.

          • medaka

            Braised and read in Pennsylvania here. Schooled w/ somma yinz in Pgh. Is there a good book on this?

          • Dramphooey

            Yes. Francis Jennings’ Empire of Fortune is an excellent one.

        • Polterguest

          LOL. I’ts pretty much been proven that Sylvia Rivera wasn’t there. And Sylvia’s “account” has changed over the years to the point that even Sylvia doesn’t know for sure what happened. Thanks for showing how little you actually know, though.

        • Gerry Fisher

          What’s your opinion about the conflicting accounts of events at Stonewall? What’s your opinion about the little video and film footage we do have that shows a vast majority of white men in traditionally male clothing?

        • Hip Byroads

          Even some Black Panthers joined in the resistance at Stonewall, Raymond Castro says in his interview. Didn’t know that, but am not surprised.

    • Dramphooey

      Ugh; a movie about farm life in Kansas. I can’t think of anything more boring. You may rest assured I’ll be skipping this one!

      • Reality.Bites

        Did you know that “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” almost didn’t make it into the final cut?

        • LonelyLiberal

          Judy, a major star, singing in a filthy farmyard? The horror!

          • Reality.Bites

            That farmyard was as filthy as a hospital operating room!

            One sad thing about movies from that era, especially now that they’re available in pristine high-definition remasters, is how everything in the sets screams “fake.”

            Watch out you don’t bump your nose on Emerald City, Dorothy!

          • Bad Tom

            You couldn’t eat the corn in that cornfield where Scarecrow was, either.

          • Reality.Bites

            There was a nimble dancer tied up on a stripper pole. Who’s gonna eat the CORN?

            http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4152868416_d58107da3d.jpg

            So round, so firm, so fully packed.

      • d.

        So you’re saying that despite being dead, Judy Garland threw the first brick at Stonewall?

        • fuow

          Almost.
          Judy couldn’t be there, so she packed bricks and bottles in all her purses for drag queens to cough up.
          That’s where the bricks and bottles came from.

        • Dramphooey

          Well, supposedly the police were chanting as they raided the place.

          http://www.wendyswizardofoz.com/sounds/winks1.mp3

    • fuow

      Oh, puhlease, Mary.
      You remind me of a conversation I once had over lunch with a very well-off, highly successful crossover Jazz artist in Berlin.
      He, wearing designer clothing which cost more than a new car, went on throughout three courses about how white people had oppressed ‘him’ with slavery.
      Nobody questions that non-white people in America are treated far, far worse than white people.
      Nobody questions that effeminate gay men and transgender people are beaten, raped and murdered at an appalling rate.
      You, however, are claiming their sufferings, their sacrifices for yourself through your outrageous indignation over a film which hasn’t even been released yet. That’s exploitation, at best, playing into the hands of people who really do have it in for you at worst.
      This is a bit like the BLM attacks on Bernie Sanders. You’re acting like a spoiled child.
      Now, if you’re in your 70’s, and you were there, say so and I’ll take it all back. Otherwise, grow up.

      • Gerry Fisher

        >This is a bit like the BLM attacks on Bernie Sanders.

        Exactly. Proof positive that they aren’t master strategists.

        There’s a movement afoot to dismiss or “quickly move past” marriage equality as an important point in our fight for equality. I’ll say this: in terms of strategy and executing that strategy patiently across decades, all other activists should be looking to emulate the marriage-equality movement, not quickly rush past it so they can get to their next bombastic-yet-ineffective “protest.” (The marriage-equality movement was noteworthy for the very *limited* use of protest.)

    • bambinoitaliano

      We have quite a lot of mature readers here who are very well aware of the history of Stonewalls among other LBGT history. Many probably are able to point out the reality and the embellishment from the movie. The younger generation are spoon fed by movies, social media and wikipedia at the click of the mouse. They do not have the benefit of recent memory of Stonewall and many could not care less researching to know more. Just as majority of Americans believe in the existence of Jesus and he is white American no thanks to Hollywood recreation of “history”. Give it a decade or two I’m sure the new generation will have a very interesting take on Stonewall. I won’t be surprise Rupaul will be the leading drag queen that lead the charge against the national guards on the revolution of gay rights. Hence the term Can I get an amen was born.

    • rkwright

      Don’t you have anything better than one statement repeated over and over? Were you there? Just curious how you can absolutely know 100 percent what happened, unless you want to claim it was you that threw the first brick. From the looks of things you are all of 12 years old, and could hardly know what happened. You, too, rely on just other people’s word. There are pictures of the actual riot, you might want to look at them again, or for the first time.

  • Art
    • Dramphooey

      The top person said the bottom person wasn’t there.

      • tomfromthenews

        By now, the particulars are apocryphal anyway.

        • JT

          Two histories to consult:

          Stonewall by Martin Duberman (1995)

          Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution by David Carter (2010)

    • d.

      And you’re just another ass who claims to care deeply about our community’s history, but makes it clear in debate that he has never read about our community’s history. Which is it, Art? If you feel so strongly about our history, explain to us why you know so little about it.

    • GunnaHurt

      Yeah thanks… But you’re posting stuff you can’t prove and trying to shame people saying “we don’t honestly know what happened…”

    • matt n

      i’d be suprised if it won an ocscar or gg. that was one uninspired, boring trailer. aside from feelings about the way the story is told and who the protagonist is, the trailer is just dull and old fashioned. don’t think i’ll be going to see this.

      • Gerry Fisher

        A thought for you: you’re not part of the targeted audience for the trailer.

    • fuow

      Sigh. Those four people proved their bravery. What, precisely, have you done for all of us queers?
      Apart from regurgitating tired old platitudes?
      Real people of color and non-cis-gendered, non-heteronormative life expressions have had the shit kicked out of them. They’re entitled to bitch, piss and moan.
      You’re trying to own something which doesn’t belong to you.
      Grow up.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I look forward to seeing some of these pioneers in the movie. Sorry they weren’t featured prominently in the trailer.

      • Dramphooey

        Storme Delarverie is in the trailer.

    • rkwright

      And do t forget these up named participants, somehow you forget they were there. Hmmm. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9ad168d52c407346f7b9db0ce9d2582bc39239c7db398655576d9d07ab3cf71.jpg

    • Cousin Bleh

      Oh lort, someone thinks a Roland Emmerich movie is going to win an Oscar.

  • Are we sure this movie is as white pretty-boy centric as some commentators here are making it out to be? The trailer seems biased — but trailers usually focus on name draws in flicks are not indicative of entire movies sometimes– they are there to provoke interest in the movie and show off the name actors. Trailers are also made by publicity departments– and can come as a surprise to the director and actors. Part of statement from Actor Jeremy Irvine about movie- released two days ago- seems to admit the trailer is biased and does not tell the entire story. I cut and paste.

    FROM JEREMY IRVINE: “To anyone with concerns about the diversity of the #StonewallMovie. I saw the movie for the first time last week and can assure you all that it represents almost every race and section of society that was so fundamental to one of the most important civil rights movements in living history.
    Marsha P Johnson is a major part of the movie, and although first hand accounts of who threw the first brick in the riots vary wildly, it is a fictional black transvestite character played by the very talented @vlad_alexis who pulls out the first brick in the riot scenes.” the actor continued.”
    “My character is adopted by a group of street kids whilst sleeping rough in New York. In my opinion, the story is driven by the leader of this gang played by @jonnybeauchamp who gives an extraordinary performance as a Puerto Rican transvestite struggling to survive on the streets.”

    You can read the entire statement here:
    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/07/jeremy-irvine-responds-to-claims-of-whitewashing-in-stonewall-film/

    This is an aside, but I did not realize Emmerich was openly gay and the movie is actually a labor of love for him.

    • Art

      I like what he has done for our community, but at the end of the day is another white gay man that doesn’t understand or seem to want to, how offensive this movie is.

      By once more showing our lives, and now our history through the eyes of a made up GQ READY white guy with a messiah complex , especially at the expense of real stonewall veterans mostly sacrificing trans, lesbians, blacks and Latinos, drag kings and queens.

      Every time I see this pic.. I cringe.. Is such a perfect metaphor for white male privilege.. Him throwing a brick, being the hero while all the minorities are in the back in ah of this brave white hero.

      That sick thing is that they try to make the situation better by letting us know that Marsha P Johnson handed him the brick… When the consensus is that it was her a trans drag queen of color that did it.

      I usually don’t care.. I’m use to it.. But I draw the line at STONEWALL… The people that sparked a riot, that created a movement, deserve better… WE DESERVE BETTER. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f59d526f722b58bc3c130f0f9657c975b1a7946cc8fe0da135896a18db202a2.jpg

      • medaka

        Copy-pasting again and again. Good on ya.

        • Reality.Bites

          I’d love to see him in an argument with BP.

          • medaka

            I know, right? That’s just what I was thinking 🙂

      • But he says (Jeremy Irvine) that a black transvestite actually “pulls out” (throws?) the first brick in the movie. .The photo above makes it seem that he is starting the riot so actually I see your point. I can’t comment on the flick because I have not seen I thought after reading comments here just about all the action in the flick was from white gay people and that is what people are so angry about, and the depiction in the trailer. But are you sure the flick itself is that biased? If you read Emmerich’s statement he seems aware of the situation and does not sound like the uncaring racist he is made out to be. http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/film/2015/08/06/roland-emmerich-responds-stonewall-critics

        • Dramphooey

          But … but … but … um.

          I like what he has done for our community, but at the end of the day is another white gay man that doesn’t understand or seem to want to, how offensive this movie is.

          By once more showing our lives, and now our history through the eyes of a made up GQ READY white guy with a messiah complex , especially at the expense of real stonewall veterans mostly sacrificing trans, lesbians, blacks and Latinos, drag kings and queens.

          Every time I see this pic.. I cringe.. Is such a perfect metaphor for white male privilege.. Him throwing a brick, being the hero while all the minorities are in the back in ah of this brave white hero.

          That sick thing is that they try to make the situation better by letting us know that Marsha P Johnson handed him the brick… When the consensus is that it was her a trans drag queen of color that did it.

          I usually don’t care.. I’m use to it.. But I draw the line at STONEWALL… The people that sparked a riot, that created a movement, deserve better… WE DESERVE BETTER.

          • So is the problem who actually throws the first brick? And how it is depicted in the trailer? Did Stonewall actually start with a brick throwing — I thought that came later. I thought Stonewall started when someone (a lesbian? A tranny? A person of color? I honestly dont know. ) would not take crap for a cop and hit back. the brick part and the part where people picked up parking meters to crash the door in came later. I do not know, and I am not justifying the movie.

          • Dramphooey

            It is when it’s a special effect brick that causes fifteen police cars to explode. But I was satirizing Art by cutting and pasting his spiel.

          • rkwright

            I like what the actual people at the actual riot did for our community. You could take a lesson. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9ad168d52c407346f7b9db0ce9d2582bc39239c7db398655576d9d07ab3cf71.jpg

      • Dedangelo

        Thank you. I’m old enough to remember when white gay men objected every time they were omitted from history (And in fact, Mr. Kramer’s book is rife with this kind of thing.). It was the right to do, as are the protests over Stonewall.

        • Dramphooey

          There is no real evidence anyone is being omitted. We have people raging about a still from the movie.

          • Gerry Fisher

            Key word being “raging.”

            “Asking questions and spurring more conversation” would be more helpful at this point, IMO.

      • matt n

        Yeah, when i watcher the trailer I thought “how formulaic, all he could think of was telling this story through the eyes of homespun white kid from the midwest… ughh.” not even a new yorker let alone a black or latino, or some kid from jersey or long island who goes into the city to have his eyes opened. get a little more realisitic and believable… i think we’re past having to present this piece of history through the eyes of white middle america to get white middle america to open its eyes. we have the internet now, and 60 percent of americans are on board with marriage equality. our audience is no longer the audience he would have been talking to when stonewall actually happened.

        • Gerry Fisher

          >…when i watcher the trailer I thought “how formulaic, all he could think of was telling this story through the yes of homespun white kid from the midwest

          If you’re using this criteria to dismiss important LGBT fiction, you’d be dismissing all of the greatest novels from the 70s through the mid-80s. Forget “Dancer from the Dance,” “A Boy’s Own Story,” “The Beautiful Room is Empty,” and “Tales of the City.” In Tales, Mary Ann arrives in San Francisco from Cleveland, and her home city becomes a decades-old joke and reference point.

          The “naive waif who makes his/her way into the Big, Bad City to discover LGBT life” was and is a tried and true formula. (Do not misinterpret this as a statement against developing other themes and approaches…creating new formulas.) We LGBT people may be thoroughly familiar with this decades-old formula, but mainstream America isn’t as “up” on LGBT lit as we are.

          • matt n

            The mainstream america you’re thinking about isn’t mainstream america anymore. Most americans favor gay marriage and know gay people. We don’t have to play to a demograpic of 30 years ago now. The movies you mention were from another era. That formula may have been necessary then. But it’s time to move on. A hackneyed, formulaic perspective is no longer necessary. It’s played out. This movie may turn out to be good. But he’s starting from a played out perspective that we’ve all seen before. It’s not tried and true. It’s a formula that’s played out.

          • Dramphooey

            The success of marriage equality proves that middle America is fully cognizant of LGBT culture in 1960s NYC. Yeah. Sure.

          • SelectFromWhere

            Heck, I know young gays who don’t really know what Stonewall was, and these are “activists” (GSA members, etc)

          • SelectFromWhere

            > We LGBT people may be thoroughly
            > familiar with this decades-old formula,
            > but mainstream America isn’t as “up”
            > on LGBT lit as we are.

            Exactly, and if it takes a fictional character for them to relate to (probably the way TALES used MaryAnn as its main “fish out of water” voice to start its story), what matters is that they will hear the story in the first place: “Gays minding their own business were routinely harassed by police and one day some of them fought back and got the ball rolling”

      • Dramphooey

        This is the only known picture from the actual night of the riot. Your GQ READY white guy is playing a street kid. The resistance to the police was started by the street kids.

        • Gerry Fisher

          I see white people.

          • John T

            Obviously they were undercover cops deployed to draw attention away from the real heroes.

        • SelectFromWhere

          Sorry, but what matters to me is that “the public’ be educated that this event HAPPENED. They aren’t going to remember who did what, but just for the “liberal ally” population who are pro-gay but have never learned a thing about our history–as well as the young GLBT folks who have never heard of Stonewall, it’s a jumping-off point to further research, just as “Selma” was for many on that issue.

      • another_steve

        “The white male taking the lead and rescuing the savages” is a common cinema motif. Some critics, as I recall, accused the makers of the 2009 blockbuster “Avatar” of perpetuating it in that film.

        Like others here, I’m for withholding judgment until we see the whole movie. But at a minimum I think the filmmakers should include a BIG disclaimer at the front of the movie to the effect that the movie is a fictional retelling of an actual event, and no more.

      • Gerry Fisher

        >doesn’t understand or seem to want to, how offensive this movie is.

        No one’s seen the freakin’ movie yet. It’s the *trailer* that’s offensive.

        • Dramphooey

          Trailer? This one guy was enraged by a still. Outraged by a still. He must be a revenuer.

          • Judas Peckerwood

            Snuffy Smith approves this comment.

      • rkwright

        Yes, because certainly there were no white people present at all, except maybe these guys…. you can argue all you want but this IS A PICTURE OF THE ACTUAL RIOT. Not just some screen shot of a movie. Seems realistic to me…

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7b419e7feb8a557af8a7386e69016fc6c8bf8779c1a2d14062a41878212133f.jpg

        • Dramphooey

          Oh, no! GQ READY WHITE TWINKS! You’ve ruined history!

        • GarySFBCN

          Nobody said that there weren’t any whites at the riot. Nobody.

          • John T

            But in my memories of the event, the only people at the riots were heroic trans women of color facing off against cis scum white cops, while cowardly cis white gay men stood on the sidelines sipping appletinis and plotting how they were going to take all the credit. My feelings are more important than your photographs!

      • Polterguest

        You just don’t know what you are talking about.

  • matt n

    but what does he really think?

  • Octavio

    I liked Cruising.

    • Dramphooey

      Hey, I liked The Lone Ranger.

    • It saw Cruising before I came out — i think I saw it at 16 — and that movie turned me on so bad it was not funny. When Al Pacino said “pah-ty sized” in that New York accent of his to a question about how big his schlong was, it was a transformative moment for me. I am NOT being funny. .I did not get how anti gay that movie was until I actually came out.

      • fuow

        I didn’t see it until the 1990s.
        It has stood the test of time. True artistry.
        That said, I understand why many gay men were upset about the portrayal of our ‘life-styles’ back then. This was the era of the moral-majority feeling their adolescent strength and everything they could use against us, they did.
        Pacino was hot in that film. He sizzled.

        • Gerry Fisher

          I think context is important. Until the breakthrough years of ’85/’86, there just weren’t enough positive, diverse portrayals of gay men and lesbians in the movies. (We hadn’t really begun to work on bi and trans characters, though some existed.) So, the “lesbian vampire” and “sex crazed, unhealthy gay men” themes were, well, killing us. For more info, see the excellent “Celluloid Closet.”

          I was fine with the slasher melodrama, the hot bar scenes, and Pacino chewing up scenery as usual. IMO, the worst, absolutely WORST thing they did in the movie was to kill the sweet, gay neighbor of Pacino’s. it hammered home the far right’s favorite theme: being gay is a Death Style, and, as normal as you think you are and try to make it, there’s no escaping the sick lifestyle you’ve chosen.

    • ErikDC

      That movie was cray-cray! I watched it last month for the first time, as it came out before I was born.

      What was that movie trying to say? It seemed like it was implying u could turn gay just by being around gay people, Lol. Did Pacino kill the guy at the end because he hated himself for “turning” gay? It wasn’t entirely clear.

      • Octavio

        Friedken had to cut so much out of the final release — more than 30 minutes — that the dubeity of Al Pacino’s character (who was actually the killer, but never realized it because of a multiple personality disorder) was obfuscated. In the book that’s basically the conclusion most readers are left with because the history of Pacino’s character as a gash basher in the military and some other stuff wasn’t established in the film. Supposedly, Friedken tried to restore the 30+ minutes of footage that was cut from the original, but after 20 years the studio had destroyed it all.

  • GunnaHurt

    Most of the loudest, most vocal haters have all proven themselves to be angry homophobic Trans people who make it no secret that they hate white cis men and are furious they haven’t been washed from the film. If you look at the pictures of the riots, it’s clear there were quite a few white gay men there. The Trans activists would love to remove anything done by a white man. The crying about the movie will Peter out once people actually see it.

    • Polterguest

      If you look at pictures from the riots, it’s clear that white gay men were the vast majority.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I’m not sure that they “hate white cis men.” I’d say that they want “white cis men” out of positions of power and influence as a way to advance their cause. Not sure about the “hate” part.

      I agree with the rest of your comment.

      • GunnaHurt

        after reading comments over the last few days aimed at white cis men… yeah, I’d say a very large number of them hate white cis men and most it seems are pretty homophobic.

        • Gerry Fisher

          (Remember, we’re 90% in agreement, here!)

          I’d need to see vicious criticism of white cis men, threats against their well being, vicious lies spread to undermine their humanity and dignity, or blatant attempts at discrimination (kicked out of housing, denied jobs, etc).

          All I’ve really seen is “white cis men shouldn’t be the stars of the show all the time, and they’re TRANSPHOBIC!!! for not understanding that and getting out of the WAY, damn it!” It’s irritating, narrowly focused, and often childish, but I’m just not seeing “hate.”

          • GunnaHurt

            You realize that Matthew Shepherd was a white cis man, right? White cis men can be gay. that doesn’t mean we’re immune to discrimination.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Although I have my qualms regarding what may or may not be an erasing of segments within the LGBT community, I will probably still see the film; if only because I’m very much aware that a trailer doesn’t always ring true to the film itself. Simply put, I’ll put my final judgment on the film once I have seen the film.

    “Don’t judge what you don’t know” ……… a refrain I recall we used back in the day when people judged us. Perhaps we should consider those words again.

  • PJ

    So scary to see the left become more and more like the right.

    • Blake Jordan

      #dramaqueen

    • Gerry Fisher

      Nah. I’m 54. I remember versions of this shit coming from the far left in the late 70s and early 80s. It’s actually where the term “politically correct” (PC) came from. In the late 70s, in the LGBT community and *particularly* in the lesbian-feminist community, people were being told that their vote for a particular candidate was “politically incorrect,” because voting for that person would not “further the cause.”

      In the early-to-mid 80s, the far right picked up on “PC,” and they’ve used it to hammer us ever since. Although I do see conservatives using it to force people into the conservative-orthodoxy line as well, these days. Ironically, when a Republican’s being called a RINO, they are actually being accused of not being PC.

  • Gerry Fisher

    IMO, the problems were 1) The trailer targeting mainstream white people (that kind of marketing and approach are just too typical and disappointing), and 2) The immediate and fierce jump to “BOYCOTT!!!”

    I really liked the more nuanced conversation we had on this site yesterday about Hollywood’s missed opportunity to feature a non-white protagonist. Or a deeper discussion of the finer details of the riot, such as “Who were the real trans and drag folks whom this movie portrayed as taking in that fictional white boy?” Or even the point that Larry raised, which is that it’s often difficult to sift through conflicting accounts of a historical event.

    More discussion is good…VERY good. Treating this film like we did “Cruising”? I’m gonna have to side with Larry, on that one.

  • Neither History nor Art

    Not gonna see it, mainly because it looks like an awful piece of schlock.

    But with due respect to Mr. Kramer for all he has done in the past, the crazies may well have a point here, because there do in fact seem to be plenty of people still alive, many of them posting on this board, who will attest that the film does not accurately or even poetically capture what happened at the Stonewall Riots.

  • Blake Jordan

    Easy fix to this “problem”:

    If the writers, et. al. have not white-washed and cis-washed the story, they should have a prerelease screening for the “louder pro-boycott people”…

    If it is not all / mainly about some fictional, masc., white, gay man, with no significant involvement of PoC, drag queens, etcetera, those people can spread it across social media, and shut down the boycott.

    • Gerry Fisher

      Actually, not a bad idea. Kind of like how Hollywood finally figured out that they needed to win over Comic-Con *before* they released a scifi or comic-book film.

  • Silver Badger

    Excuse me, why deny the white contribution? We were there. We fought and bled too. Look at the still. Count the different races portrayed. Get a grip. Many of these posters sound like right wing haters and we ARE better than that.

    • Nexus1

      When is the White contribution to anything ever overlooked or denied? This country is over 77% White and it’s film industry and television industry is over 90% White. The default character in any movie or TV show is a White male. The people complaining are complaining because yet again the default/lead character in the story is going to be a White male. If people were complaining about there being White people at all in the film then your comment would be more accurate, but they are not. I don’t think people from ethnic minorities complaining that a story that they featured prominently in is once again being told from the perspective of a White man from the mid West is denying the White contribution.

      Why isn’t the lead a White woman then? We all know why, they don’t think they can sell the story with anything but a White man as the lead. That is part of the sorry state of the Hollywood entertainment industry. For a movie to get the green light from the execs or even a magazine cover to be approved it has to have a White person in a prominent role because if there are just Black and Brown faces on the screen or on the mag then there is a large swath of Americans who will pass it by. Still even in this day and age sadly. Most movies and TV shows that feature people of color in lead roles in this country are considered ‘niche’, it’s marketed almost exclusively to people of color and almost never given a chance to be mainstream and to crossover to a broader audience. George Lucas produced a film 3 years ago about the Tuskegee Airmen with a predominantly Black cast and with the lead character being Black and he said that he was taking a chance. That he could have told the story from the perspective of a White officer and it would have been more of a guaranteed hit, but he wanted to tell the story from the perspective of the people the story was mainly about, not the one that satisfied people with racial biases or who always need to see themselves as the hero. The movie didn’t do very well sadly, but it doesn’t mean that Lucas did the wrong thing or that more stories shouldn’t be told that way instead of in a way to placate people with biases.

      • Silver Badger

        Your own figures support my position. Thank you. There is nothing wrong with being white anymore than there is being black. Denying their contributions is just as bad as denying those of anyone else. Given the time of Stonewall and the fact that it was a predominately gay male bar patronized by mostly white people, a white lead male makes sense. Take your revisionist history elsewhere. Gay America embraces people of all colors, including white. It truly sounds as if YOUR bias was not embraced. Too bad.

        • Nexus1

          If my figures support your position than is your position that the majority population should have an even bigger majority of influence and time on the stage? Is that correct? So we should see even less Asian people on the big screen since their numbers are so small? So should we be satisfied with the number of depictions of LGBT’s in our media by that same logic? I never said there was anything wrong with being White. Did you even read my posts? Not being the lead all the time is not ‘denying their contributions’ no matter how many times you say it. You are projecting so many opinions onto my post that I did not express and that is quite sad. I do not think that White men should not be featured in the movie or that they didn’t play an equal or predominant role at Stonewall. My point was that I fully understand the dissatisfaction that minority groups feel in almost never being the lead or the co-star in the majority of major motion pictures of this sort. If that is somehow denying the contributions of White men than I guess every movie that doesn’t feature one in the lead is somehow doing that. The fact that you see a plea by minority groups for an equal position on the stage as somehow anti anyone shows your indifference to their concerns. There was a movie about Stonewall back in the 90’s that had a non White lead and it was not somehow odd or lacking sense, it was as true to the story as this film may likely be, it shows that it can be done. My bias for what exactly? For leads characters to not almost always be from one group in a multi ethnic country? If the lead had been Hispanic or Black or Asian then that would have been a bias against White people? Seriously? Threads like this sadly show just how thin the bonds of this community are at times. You don’t have to agree with the concerns and opinions of the films critics, but you don’t have to dismiss them either.

          • Silver Badger

            I do not find your arguments to be convincing. We must agree to disagree.

  • leastyebejudged

    Of course Larry likes it, he’s just as much a revisionist asshole.

    • Polterguest

      It’s the trannies who have been doing the revising. But thanks for trying, sweetums.

      • leastyebejudged

        The tiresome lumping of all trans people together like that is stupid.

        And Larry Kramer is still a jackass.

  • 2karmanot

    Gawd, am I ever sick of the as*hole pups, who know nothing, bitch and moan, and attack allies. That goes for the trans community, Black lives are Irritating, and now Stonewall. pppppfffffttt Now get the F’ off my lawn!

  • pseudoamericano

    The issue is visibility! Everyone seems to be looking at this movie in isolation. I see this movie debate as the boiling over of the simmering anger that has been building in the LGBT community, where only a certain group is seen and heard. Visibility is what we fight for, we come out to make it know who we are…yet if you look at media (magazines, blogs and movies) you would think that being LGBT is only a white thing.

    For Larry Kramer to call people, that want their voices to be heard( through activism, boycotting etc.), ‘crazies’ is ridiculous coming from him. He, who know what it’s like to be marginalized.

    See the bigger picture here people. This is an issue of VISIBILITY.

  • Dramphooey

    My thoughts on this discussion: I don’t believe anyone has proven this film is twisting the history of what happened–not with the trailer and certainly not with the still.

    What really disturbs me is the undercurrents I’m seeing. “Cis” is suddenly used to attack people. On the other hand antiTrans hostility exploded quickly as if a match was dropped into a powder keg. We really need to step back and take a long look at what is happening here.

    • Polterguest

      “Cis” has always been used as a slur by trannies.

      • CottonBlimp

        No transphobia here, no sirree.

        • Polterguest

          Tit-for-tat, sugar. And, honestly, I couldn’t care less about being labeled with “transphobia.” Disagreeing with the flood of bullshit that comes from trannies isn’t a phobia, no matter how much they try to assert otherwise. It’s well past time that these non-gay, mentally ill children were ejected from the gay male and female civil rights movement. Let them act out on their own with their own fucking money and their own organizational work and abilities (oh right, sorry, they don’t contribute money or hard work, just opinions.)

          • Helen in Ireland

            My wife is trans. It has taken us years to get to where we are and transition is no cakewalk. As part of her transition she had to undergo TWO psychiatric evaluations and was declared SANE and RATIONAL both times.

            So no, being trans is not a mental illness and when gay people were and are still stigmatised in the same way by anti gay fundamentalists then I find your post ignorant and offensive.

          • Helen in Ireland

            Oh, and we canvassed every week for four months in all weather to help pass the marriage equality referendum here (even though trans people and bisexuals had to otherwise step back ‘into the closet’ in order to avoid confusing issues for the voters).

            So do NOT lecture me about hard work!

          • Polterguest

            You’re welcome to find my post ignorant and offensive. I find the attacks on “cis” gay males and on lesbians that frequently come from “queers” and from the “trans” community to be ignorant and offensive. It’s a free world. Get over it. Don’t like how the community of gay men and women respond to your needs? Form your own civil rights movement. Thanks.

          • I mean, I’m on your side 99.5% here, but I’m still torn on the mental issue part. As a Psych student, I do understand the need for calling it such for diagnostic purposes, but there’s a bit of an uncomfortable grey area that gets tough to parse when you’re actually talking about civil rights.

          • Polterguest

            As far as civil rights go. I believe that “trans” individuals shouldn’t be discriminated against in housing, jobs, etc. I just don’t believe that they belong in the gay civil rights movement and the gay community. Mostly because they are horribly homophobic. Also I don’t appreciate the gay erasure that they frequently engage in. They are welcome to form, fund, and organize their own groups rather than tell homosexuals how to run ours.

  • rkwright

    Here is an interesting read on the Uprising. It has an article written by a gay man at the time of the riots. It is interesting to note that The Stonewall was mainly a drag/trans/ homeless or street youth based eatablishment. So, that young white guy, depending on the story, would have been right at home at that bar and right at home in the 6 days of rioting and marching that followed. Seems the Stonewall was an early inception of The Trevor Project. It’s where those with nowhere else to go ended up.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/an-amazing-1969-account-of-the-stonewall-uprising/272467/

  • Ogre Magi

    I am kind of undecided about Larry Kramer is he a hero or just a sanctimonious jerk? I am really not sure

    • fkevin

      Why not both? 😉 Larry is the guy who tells you what you don’t want hear. And he is right.

  • When emotions are running high, its hard to process details, as our brains usually file these memories as emotional files, smells, body cues (ie pain, tremors, movements) and incomplete still snap shots. Added to this is that after Stonewall many LGBT activists used their being at Stonewall as a legitimacy badge. A weapon as it were to mark the”true activists” from those who were looked down upon as being mere neophytes.

    We are a splintered community, held together with spit and string and desire for a better tomorrow, but we are subject to terrible infighting, and much of it is over power and the ability to command attention by the straight media. The arguing over a trailer illuminates the deep divide within our community. And like any community that is made up of an oppressed people, if we weren’t oppressed how many of these so different from ourselves would we be communing with?

    This isn’t a documentary, but a movie, which as we all know, trend towards being not overly faithful to highlighting all the facts. Rather than looking at this movie for its short comings, maybe we should look at it as a way to educate those who have no idea what Stonewall is about. And if the movie proves popular at the box office several more will be made highlighting the different views of what happened that fateful night and week.

  • i’ve never supported this boycott, based on the trailer, but frankly i’m rather happy that the LGBT communities have many members who are expressing concerns about it based on the content and tone of the trailer.

    i know some people turn it into “oh, look, NOTHING makes *these people* happy”. me? i see it as a great thing that we’re not silently complacent about shit.

    • But it’s true. For some of these morons, NOTHING does make ’em happy.

      Here’s an example from earlier, re: Meg Kelly/The Don, and a fight I got in w/ Robbie Kaplan:

      https://twitter.com/KathaPollitt/status/630458832611844096

      Robbie (from Southern Equality and GLAD) reposted that and I took ’em all to task because it would honestly be like defending someone who gave aid and comfort to the SS from being called a ‘Nazi’ [yes, I went there. It fits.]

      Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been calling Megyn “balanced”! This woman has had one of the most ardent anti-LGB persons in our culture on television repeatedly, and these feminists want me to back her when Donnie gives her some hell?

      FUCKING NO! If a person is part and parcel of a movement to denigrate or remove our rights and privileges, DAMN STRAIGHT I’m gonna call ’em out…this woman (Pollitt) was asking if I’d defend that nutball Carson against racism?

      Umm…I’m the FIRST to call that dumbass an Uncle Ruckus [and worse]…those words are RESERVED for people who sell out their own race or gender.

      See why I’m a misanthrope?

      • Polterguest

        That’s cis-sexist and transphobic! What about “women” who don’t have a uterus and don’t menstruate? Oh my gawwwwwd why won’t you think of the trannies?

      • frankly, Megyn Kelly shouldn’t be surprised. she supports and anti-woman network and an anti-woman party. she’ll be more than welcomed by liberals, as long as she gives up her historic racism in the process.

        yes, some people are never happy. that doesn’t mean that all concerns on an issue should be dismissed.
        i’m disgusted by the way the Right is allacking Ms. Kelly, but i’m not surprised by it.

  • catherinecc

    “Don’t listen to the crazies.”

    And how many times has Larry been put into that group?

  • truthy

    Judging a movie by a trailer is silly. Pretending white gay men did not start the gay rights movement is a lie. Saying a white male could not have thrown the first brick is racist and PC non-sense. Anyone using the term CIS already loses any argument for the PC condescension points earned.

  • GanymedeRenard

    PART 1

    Disclaimer: Please, fellow JMG readers, excuse the length of this post, which I’m dividing in two parts for those of you who have some time to spare.

    I haven’t read all the posts before mine, so excuse me if I
    say something repetitive. In my humble opinion (emphasis on “opinion”), it would be fair to say that we can all agree on the following:

    1.
    The movie in question isn’t out yet, so it would be prudent to wait and actually see it when it’s released –and not dismiss it a priori based on a simple trailer that may or may not reflect the actual content.

    2.
    The movie is a work of fiction, like all other films that aren’t explicitly promoted as “documentary”.

    3.
    Therefore, it’s an unequivocal representation of a particular director’s subjectivity –with all its implications. And this is true even for documentaries. A director will cut and edit the parts that aren’t relevant to the message that he or she is trying to convey.

    4.
    On the other hand, it is certain that PoC –let alone PoC within the larger LGBTQI community– have for much too long been underrepresented in the mainstream American and European film industry.

    5.
    Trans PoC have a point in being angry.

    6.
    This is analogous to our collective LGBTQI anger vis-à-vis our exclusion from, say, the Saint Patrick’s parade, and is equally analogous to our demand for a non-marginal representation in major Hollywood movies, short films, sitcoms, etc.

    7.
    It follows that those of us who form the LGB components of our community should be more empathetic in relation to the plight and needs of our trans brothers and sisters. It’s a matter of understanding where they’re coming from —and it shouldn’t be that hard.

    8.
    We all could use a little more empathy and sensitivity. Transphobia and racism are real, whether we admit it or not. Sometimes, for instance, I perceive some bits of casual racism here and there when news about Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are reported –and oh believe me, I’m NOT a defender of those douchebags and of the insidious ideology they personify, or their entire political party for that matter. But some readers
    seem to refer to them as “brown” just because they happen to be of Hispanic descent.

    Judging by his sheer appearance, actually, Rubio looks as white as Walker and whiter than Christie. I myself have experienced that bizarre effect: The minute I say that I’m originally from a Spanish-speaking country, the conversation changes and people tend to ask me, “Are both of your parents Hispanic?” –as if being Hispanic or Latin meant that one would necessarily be “brown”/not have a fair skin tone. In other words, be, well, “white”, which would seem unfathomable in the eyes of so many people in the USA. But this is just to illustrate how accustomed we all are to thinking from our own particular perspective, from our own worldview, from our own privilege.

  • GanymedeRenard

    PART 2

    That being said, I personally don’t feel comfortable when a trans brother or sister refers to me as ‘cis’. I’m very much aware that this Latin prefix (Latin as in the language of the ancient Romans) is etymologically accurate to describe the opposite of ‘trans’. It is, however, a term that I did NOT choose to define myself.

    For example, it’d be fair to say that we have come to embrace and prefer the term ‘gay’ to ‘homosexual’ insofar as the latter has a clinical, almost pejorative connotation. True, some people might prefer the term ‘homosexual’, and that is their perfectly valid choice and prerogative. But, I repeat, the choice is THEIRS to make.

    If a person chooses to impose on my personhood/identity a term that I did NOT choose to define myself at any point, then I take issue.

    I believe that the trans component of our community have embraced the term “trans” with no difficulties because it has been their freely made choice to embrace it. And, of course, we all agree to use the proper gender pronouns to refer to them, and all of us (I believe) support their rights. But that doesn’t give them the right to define other people.

    I simply define myself as a gay man who is not in conflict with his birth-given genitals. If pressed hard, I’d go as far as to say that I’m a non-trans person –although I don’t define myself in negative terms.

    So, there. That’s my take on the ‘cis’ category. And, please, please, please, without a particle of irony, forgive me if I have caused offense to anyone on here. It was never my intention. Now y’all can go enjoy your Sunday! 🙂

  • Bobby

    He’s right. All you butt hurt assholes need to STFU and wait to see the movie before judging it.

  • Guest

    One side is “This is good enough! Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good!” The other side is “Your good doesn’t even have a good us in it. You’re basically that kind of ally who takes up all the air in the room and never lets the people they’re supposedly allied with actually share of themselves.”

  • Hard2find

    I am going to the movie, because I want to, your opinion are is yours may they serve you well. However your opinion is like every arm pit you have two, they both stink, same with mine LoL

  • Saya

    From “Stonewall” by David Carter (an exhaustively researched book on the riots, which runs to nearly 900 pages):

    “My research for this history demonstrates that if we wish to name the group most responsible for the success of the riots, it is the young, homeless homosexuals, and, contrary to the usual characterizations of those on the rebellion’s front lines, most were Caucasian; few were Latino; almost none were transvestites or transsexuals; most were effeminate; and a fair number came from middle-class families.” (p. 639)

    Carter makes the statement above only after noting that many different types of people participated. The event doesn’t belong to any one group and he rejects the notion that “credit for starting the riot” can be bestowed upon any one group or upon any one incident triggering event. The first major act of resistance came from a lesbian. The first person to scream “Gay Power!” was a white, gay man. As for crossdressers, they had moments of heroism as well. But there is no key moment when some drag queen threw a brick, as these boycotters are saying. It’s just false. And Carter is pretty clear that the role of crossdressers and transsexuals has been exaggerated and mythologized:

    “It is remarkable—and no doubt inevitable given human psychology—that in the popular imagination the number of transvestites at the riots is always exaggerated. Readers will note that in the McDarrah photos of the riots there is one transgendered person and none of the persons I interviewed, some of whom knew her, ever saw her actively involved in the riots. The Ambrosini photo does not show a single transvestite. Craig Rodwell told researcher Michael Scherker that “one of the myths about Stonewall is it was all drag queens. I mean, drag queens are part of what went on. Certainly one of the most courageous, but there were maybe twelve drag queens… in thousands of people.” (Scherker-Roadwell interview)” (p 831).

  • JCF

    Theme for today: progressive in-fighting is NOT funny. Now, about to post same on the Sanders thread, above.

    • Man_in_the_mists

      Assuming of course those two ladies that hijacked the Bernie Sanders rally weren’t really there to drive a wedge between black people and Bernie.

  • With due respect to Mr. Kramer, he is wrong. In fact, there is an employee of the Stonewall working there right now who was there the night of the riots. And he will tell you it was in fact the people of color, trans folks, and queens who were at the forefront. It wasn’t some guy who looks like Chris Evans.

    • johncAtl

      And the opening of the trailer says “inspired by.” As many others here have said it’s not a documentary. Kramer is not wrong.

      • No, it is not a documentary. But this isn’t just for dramatic effect. It has the effect of erasing history. This is what people not in the know will think Stonewall was. And it sends the message that people of color and trans folks can’t draw an audience. If this movie is anything like the trailer, I have zero intention of giving them my money.

        • johncAtl

          How do you know it erases history when you haven’t seen it?

          And since you’ve already made your mind up I’ll go see it twice to make up for you not seeing it.

          • I clearly said if it ended up being like the trailer, I would not see it. Maybe you should learn to pay attention instead of spending your time being snarky. You aren’t good at it.

          • johncAtl

            Again, how will you know if you haven’t seen it personally? I’m not being snarky…you’re being bitchy.

          • I’ll know by reporting on it on sites like this. It isn’t that complicated.

          • johncAtl

            It’s not that complicated to form your own opinions either.

          • No, it is not. And it is my opinion that an event involving people of color and trans people shouldn’t be presented to the mainstream as a story about a noble white guy. If that is indeed what happens, I have zero interest in it. Much like this discussion.

          • johncAtl

            And once again you have judged the movie without having seen anything but two minutes of trailer produced by the marketing department.

            And I guess you boycotted every other movie produced that was “inspired by” some real event. Hint, there’s a lot of them.

          • Sigh. I guess you’d have been okay if they had cast Colin Ferrell in the lead of the Ray Charles biopic too. Inspired by doesn’t mean telling a completely false story. The trailer indicates that is the case. I hope it is not. If it is, I won’t be bothering.

          • johncAtl

            And you would put that in the category of “inspired by?”

            And you do realize that even though Emmerich has made movies that have made billions of dollars that he has no major studio backing in this film? Why aren’t you willing to give it a chance?

          • Again, you aren’t reading. I will in fact give it a chance if it turns out he has not whitewashed history. If he has, I have better things to do with my money.

          • johncAtl

            I am reading. You said flat out that Kramer was wrong without having seen the movie. Then you said you wouldn’t see the movie based on the opinion of others.

            And again, you are being condescending.

          • No, I said that Mr. Kramer was wrong that there is no one left who can say what happened. There is. He is a friend of mine who currently works there and was there that night.

          • Polterguest

            Sure he was there.

          • Google Time Magazine Stonewall bartender. Better yet, here you go: http://time.com/3937600/stonewall-bartender-remembers-riots/

          • johncAtl

            That’s nice. He talks about Sylvia Rivera, who was an amazing activist. But the consensus seems to be that she wasn’t there that night. And if he was working was he outside to see who threw the first brick?

            But go back to my very first comment. “Inspired by.” Not Colin Farrell playing the part of a real person, but a movie that uses a fictional character to retell an historical event. I guess you’ve never been to a movie since you’ve been outside boycotting most of what Hollywood produces.

          • Polterguest

            The mythology (aka the big sack of bullshit and lies) is wayyyy more important than the facts, donchu know. How dare you question Sylvia and the hysterical trannies version of “history” that they are putting forth this week. My gosh you cis transphobe.

          • johncAtl

            When this whole topic about the movie started days ago I had to Google what “cis” meant. And I guess I am since I was born male and still very happily identify as male. I like male body parts – mine and others.

            I’ll be 60 in a month, and I’ve always understood that trans (-vestite or -gender) people played a big role in what happened at Stonewall. And I will always respect what they did because they were the catalyst to the gay rights movement. I’m not bothered by a movie that may use Stonewall as the backdrop to a story about a fictional character.

          • Polterguest

            Except the gay rights movement had been moving along quite well before Stonewall. It’s made for a good mythological symbol, but unfortunately even the mythology ha beyond being useful because it no longer has even the slightest anchor in reality.

          • johncAtl

            I will admit to being naive (even at almost 60) if there were major events that occurred before Stonewall. But I’ve never heard of any. Was there an event before Stonewall where queers fought back, and the fight went on for days after?

          • The Tenderloin riots in SF in ’65 (I think?) were big. I read that in (oddly enough) trans activist Susan Stryker’s book “Transgender History” (Seal Studies) for my Intro to Women’s Studies class.

          • Polterguest

            The Compton Cafeteria riot (which was actually more trans than gay) happened in 1966.

            But I would argue with your premise that it took a riot to “start” the gay rights movement. There were several gay and lesbian groups in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s. They had even started doing public demonstrations pre-Stonewall. Before that, there is a history of writers who were advocating for gay rights (back then they used terms like homophile or invert rather than gay.) Checkout Edward Carpenter (more known for being a poet) and Havelock Ellis.

          • Polterguest

            LOL. Thanks! I stopped reading at “Many historians credit the Stonewall riots as the catalyst that ignited the gay rights movement, led by trans women like Sylvia Rivera.

            It’s been proven that Sylvia was in jail the night of the riots. She’s a liar. A liar whose story has changed just about every decade since 1969.

            Oh, and guess what? The gay rights movement started wayyyyy before the Stonewall riots. That kind of lazy-ass “history” is absolutely ridiculous.

            Thanks for trying, tho’!!!

          • Hmmm…so do I trust someone I know who was there that night or a random troll? I think I know.

          • Polterguest

            Prove your “friend” was there that night. It’s already been proven that Sylvia wasn’t.

          • johncAtl

            Could have happened. I was visiting Mars this week and that damn NASA thing got a picture. I looked like a crab on some rocks.

          • johncAtl

            Then have your friend contact Joe, and let Joe interview him.

          • Time Magazine beat him to it. But thanks.

          • Polterguest

            ” I have zero interest in it. Much like this discussion.”
            Yet you can’t shut up. Seems you’re super interested in both, dear.

  • David From Canada

    Uh-oh. The Far Left won’t like Larry Kramer’s statement. He’s too honest for them and didn’t throw around a lot of PC bullshit.
    Go see the “Stonewall” movie and promote more Unity In The Gay Community. I’m going to.

  • As a writer, my early opinion is that maybe the film needs a rewrite. Why just feature one lead when you can have 3-4 leads? Why not make it an ensemble film like The Hours, Magnolia, Babel or Requiem For A Dream. It all boils down to intent – to make a good film that is universal or to use LGBT issue as vehicle for business and reputation.

  • THEBEARCUB

    Yeah Larry Marsha P Johnson, Sylvia Rivera and Storme DeLarverie are rolling over in their graves even in death minority gays still get steamed rolled over. Fuck you Larry Kramer I guess you feel your legacy is the only correct one?

  • THEBEARCUB

    It really doesn’t matter I guess, correct?

  • DaveMiller135

    I’m not sure I’m taking advice on who the “crazies” are from Larry Kramer, but I also don’t believe in movie boycotts before anyone has seen the film.

  • Dell Jksyn

  • Edd

    You same people were screaming your heads off for a boycott when the trailer appeared online. Now that the great Larry Kramer has spoken, you all seem to have lost your balls.

  • CJAS

    With history, there are many ways “to prove a lot of stuff”. As the events were a mere 46 years ago, and reasonably well-covered, finding documentary, newspaper, and magazine interviews, news reports, arrest reports, newspaper and personal photos, diaries and other first-person accounts, is relatively easy, actually. Even if it weren’t, the choice of protagonist would still be an act of supremacy and the concern over the trailer valid.

  • CaliforniaDude

    I’m going to see it for sure. I’m so tired of people always whining about something. I’ll go see this movie if I damn please! I’m so sick of LGBT people becoming constant complainers about everything an coming across as a bunch of whiners. Things are good! AIDS is pretty much treatable and we have marriage equality nationwide! I for one am celebrating now and not having a pity party anymore! Go see this great movie! The young LGBT need to know our history!

  • Chris Davis

    Wow, I find myself agreeing with Larry Kramer. That hasn’t happened in years.

  • DeMille By A Mile

    Social media now days can capture it all. But I dare say the “meaning” may still be lost with future films despite clear images.